The Roots of Reverse Class Warfare

Reader Comments
Back to blog

wrote: " . . . [it is] a bit like saying all people of social group wear the same size shoe." Which is precisely why the government is not the vehicle. Government is good at creating a round hole. Unfortunately, square pegs don't fit nicely and neatly in round holes. Consequently, let's create more round holes. Before long you have something that looks like swiss cheese . . . which, interestingly enough is exactly how the government looks. A plethora of programs trying to do a lot but achieving little.
Bruce wrote: "add to the fact that before the bush recession,more people were working and thus for paying income taxes.when the economy improves,and more people can find a job the situation will reverse its self."
So tell me what has Obama's stimulus stimulated besides more debt. Again, historical context is needed. Facts show that the recession during Bush's watch was the result of Dems failed social experiment in the form of Freddie/Fanny. The chickens came home to roost during Bush's tenure. Bush was on record voicing his concern about the potential disaster. But, ok. He was president. He should/could have done something if he was so certain. But he didn't. So, if you hold Bush's toes to the fire for his "recession" then you have to put Obama's toes in the fire for prolonging the recession and subsequent depression. Which explains Obama's plummeting poll numbers. I find it surprising Obama's poll numbers aren't in the teens. Had this term of presidency been a Republican president, Dems would be calling for a recall election.
The irony is that it will take a Republican president to repair the damage. Put the country on a sound financial footing. Turn the current tide. And, when it happens, Obama will get the credit by saying it was a result of Obama's policies that finally caught hold. Much like Dems try and credit Clinton whose presidency was saved by a Republican controlled congress.

David of ID 10:32AM August 24, 2011

people can argue about what,or how,got got the country into it;s current fiscal quagmire,thats yesterdays news.right now what is needed,is not more postulating by our leaders in washington,but a solid,workable plan to create jobs and get the economy moving again.

bruce b of NV 3:11AM August 24, 2011

brucetee, don't mind me, I provide evidence with links. Does it hurt, knowing it takes all liberal cable news to equal Fox news prime time audience ?
Recession was coming and Bush tried to stop it, beginning year one in office. Bad housing paper go recession going:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/
__
"The 1993 Clinton Tax Increase Did Not Lead to the Budget Surpluses of the Late 1990s"
"Since the Clinton Administration’s own numbers reveal that the 1993 tax increase was a failure, we have to find a different reason to explain why the budget shifted to surplus in the late 1990s."
"Fortunately, there’s no need for an exhaustive investigation. The Historical Tables on OMB’s website reveal that good budget numbers were the result of genuine fiscal restraint. Total government spending increased by an average of just 2.9 percent over a four-year period in the mid-1990s. This is the reason why projections of $200 billion-plus deficits turned into the reality of big budget surpluses."
"Republicans say the credit belongs to the GOP Congress that took charge in early 1995. Democrats say it was because of Bill Clinton. But all that really matters is that the burden of federal spending grew very slowly. Not only was there spending restraint, but Congress and the White House agreed on a fairly substantial tax cut in 1997."
"To sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart (click to enlarge) modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government approach compared to the OMB and CBO forecasts of what would have happened under Clinton’s tax-and-spend baseline."
http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2011/02/10/the-1993-clinton-tax-increase-did-not-lead-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-1990s/
__
Brucetee, what does Steve Wynn mean when he said obama was a "wet blanket". Guy Is a democrat supporter RIGHT ???

Bill Hedges of MO 3:09PM August 23, 2011

the republicans do a fine job of trying to lump all of the socially needy into a one size fits all category.this of course absurd and a bit like saying all people of social group wear the same size shoe.this not to say that there are not a certian percentage of people who"game the system",these people,when caught should be banished from the benefit rolls.
the people at fox news, that megaphone of misinformation,led by the "three clowns" on the morning,fox and friends".do their part to misinform and mislead their viewers on this and other subjects.
all people ,rich or poor,pay the same taxes on good and services.add to the fact that before the bush recession,more people were working and thus for paying income taxes.when the economy improves,and more people can find a job the situation will reverse its self.

bruce b of NV 1:52PM August 23, 2011

Good comments and appreciate your input. I agree. The poor in America are considered "poor" relative to the "rich". But cutting the legs out from under the "rich" will not have any discernable effect on the "poor". Perhaps, the "poor" will not be seen as poor compared to the wealthy. I guess it helps the "poor" feel better about themselves and their lot in life.
I agree that there are many categorized as poor: food stamps, medicaid, section 8 housing, unemployment, etc who learn to game the system. Are they categorically "poor" after taking everything into account: their expenditures, black market labor earnings, welfare hand-outs, savings from debt dodgings, etc?
I would even be willing to say that the generally speaking, the poor are poor because they are financially illiterate and irresponsible. Being "poor" in America, therefore, is a choice.

David of ID 1:06PM August 23, 2011

This is where the GOP misses the boat in the discussion, if government gives a person money for doing nothing but breathing vs the government giving money to a company that is trying to expand, innovate, or taking chances on anything to grow the business. The person spends the money for self-interest and creates nothing except consumption, but the company spends the money in the interest of the company which creates jobs, goods, and other opportunities for other people.
And don’t give me any crap about “you don’t care” or “the poor”. I grew up poor and today I am at best middle-middle-class. I remember growing up and watching my mother decide which was more important electricity or water and then she would pay that bill first and hope the other didn’t get turned off. Was it fun, hell no, but we survived and we learned to appreciate life and the things we did have. BTW, my family NEVER took government money, we just found a way.
So why should I work my azz off to help pay for some lowlife’s big tricked out 4x4?
The only answer is to make EVERYONE pay something and that is why I support the flat tax with zero deductions or maybe a two tier flat tax with zero deductions, let’s say tier 1 is anyone earning less than $1,000,000 at 20% and tier 2 at is anyone earning over a million at 25%. I would love to see someone run the numbers and see what tax level would be needed to cover at least the amount of revenues coming into the treasury now. Then we just need to stop the spending on all programs that cannot be means (needs) tested, you truly need the money and can’t work fine. If you need the money we will give it to you, but if you are able body you get to work for the government as a volunteer so you earn the money. And to the Slave Unions, NO volunteers cannot join your Slave Union.

Larry of CA 11:10AM August 23, 2011

But if you have a job, a car, a cell phone and high speed internet access guess what your are NOT poor or needy, you are just playing the system.
Here is a good example, if you are driving a Ford 250 with a 6" lift, and 32" tires and ready to four wheel or if you are driving a BMW with gold plate rims and a full hydro system both with a sound system you can hear for 6 blocks, then guess what you don't need food stamps or a governemtn check of any kind and you should also be paying taxes just like everyone else.
Just imagine how many people truely need help and how many we could help if we banished the social leeches from the government payroll.

Larry of CA 11:09AM August 23, 2011